Dear transfer

I watched the program of Vladimir Solovyov "to the barrier." Vladimir Zhirinovsky was opposed by an American political scientist, my classmate at the History of Moscow State University Nikolai Zlobin. Zlobin is a competent person, in the debate, and with a very good sense of humor, was nevertheless obviously not at ease, could not find the correct tonality and lost "in one gate."

Of course, my friend was doomed in any case: he played "for America." And anyone could be his opponent, even a homeless person from a neighboring trash, the outcome of the duel was still predetermined. Anyone who "for America" ​​is unambiguously losing. I think that Zlobin was aware of this, he knew what he was going on, and I would pay tribute to his courage.

However, the courage of America’s lawyer is sure that not all viewers made a due impression. But a very strong impression was made by the question of one of the seconds of Zlobin, a well -known “television sign” Byakko: why does Zhirinovsky defend the interests of Israel? And what he protects them is quite obvious, because who, like not he sobbed over the grave of his father in the promised land.

Byalko recommended himself a member of the ATP, but his opponents, the seconds of Zhirinovsky, representing a completely different direction of political thought, obviously, were hung out such a virgin fundamentalist formulation of the issue. Of course, Zhirinovsky himself could not be taken. He made an impenetrable respectable face and rightly noted that he did not understand what his ethnic origin, as well as the whereabouts of his dad, have the location of his dad, have to be discussed by the topic "Russia and America".

I must say that at that moment my sympathy naturally moved to the side of Zhirinovsky. Which indicates first of all about one thing: idiocial actions can be achieved a very significant result, albeit opposite to the vector of the orientation of these actions.

Any attempt by liberals, regardless of their party affiliation, was famously playing on a foreign site and generating, for one or another reasons, with an ultra -rationalist voter is very expensive. It can lead to only one result, namely, to the loss of ideological self -identification. The electoral base in this way does not expand, but on the contrary, is blurred, lost and leaves from under the legs. Moreover, this happens regardless of the degree of nobility or the expediency of the declared goal. In other words, is it worth the task of "cut" Zhirinovsky or confront Putin, win in a specific discussion or save from someone or something country. The goal in all such cases, without exception, does not justify the means, and not only in the moral and moral, but also in the very purely pragmatic sense.